IVLER vs.
JUDGE SAN PEDRO, MeTC ISSUE
J. Carpio | November 17, 2010
TOPIC: Single offense; duplicity of offense. [See Rule 110, sec. 13]
DOCTRINE: PLEASE SEE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION
FACTS
 Following a vehicular collision in August 2014, Ivler was charged with the
following before MTC Pasig:
(1) Reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries
(2) Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property
o Ivler posted bail for his temporary release in both cases.
 Ivler pleaded guilty for the first charge and was meted out the penalty of public
censure. With this, he filed a motion to quash the second information by virtue of
double jeopardy since both information roots from the same reckless
imprudence.
 The MeTC refused to quash, finding no identity of offenses in the two cases.
o The MeTC denied the MFR. Hence, Ivler elevated the motion to quash
to the RTC.
 While the motion to quash was with the RTC, Ivler filed a motion to suspend the
proceedings involving the second offense in the MeTC invoking that the issue
being resolved in the RTC raises a prejudicial question.
o Without acting on Ivler’s motion, the MeTC proceeded with the
arraignment and because of his absence, cancelled his bail and ordered
his arrest.
o 7 days later, the MeTC issued a resolution denying petitioner’s motion to
suspend proceedings and postponing his arraignment until after his
arrest.
o Ivler sought reconsideration but as of the filing of this petition, the
motion remained unresolved.
 The RTC dismissed Ivler’s motion to quash. The RTC held that Ivler forfeited his
standing to maintain his motion before the RTC by virtue of MeTC’s order to
arrest him for his non-appearance at his arraignment for his second case.
o Thus without reaching the merits of Ivler’s motion to quash, the RTC
effectively affirmed the MeTC.
 Hence, Ivler filed this petition with the SC.
(1) WON Ivler forfeited his standing to seek relief with the RTC when the MeTC
ordered his arrest following his non-appearance at the arraignment in his second
criminal case – NO
(2) If not, WON Ivler’s constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars
further proceedings in his second criminal case – YES
RATIO
(1) Ivler’s non-appearance at the arraignment in his second criminal case did not
divest him of personality to maintain his petition with the RTC.
 The RTC’s decision finds no basis.
o Under Rule 114, Sec. 21, the defendant’s absence merely renders his
bondsman potentially liable on its bond; the defendant retains his
standing and, should he fail to surrender, will be tried in absentia and
could be convicted or acquitted.
 Thus, mere non-appearance does not ipso facto convert the
accused’s status to that of a fugitive without standing.
(2) The protection afforded by the Constitution shielding Ivler from prosecutions
placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense bars further
proceedings in his second criminal case.
 Ivler’s conviction in the first criminal case was rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction upon a valid charge. Thus, the only remaining question is whether
both cases constitute the “same offense.”
 The SC held that both cases involve the “same offense.”
o Reckless imprudence is a single crime; its consequences on persons
and property are material only to determine the penalty.
o The SC held that prior conviction or acquittal of reckless imprudence
bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense.
IMPORTANT: Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or
acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for that same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of
criminal negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the
execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be
punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not
the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to
determine the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as
the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or
 several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the same,
and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.

 Article 48 does not apply to acts penalized under Article 365 of the RPC.

o Article 365 defines and penalizes quasi-offenses.

o Article 48 provides for complexing of crimes.

o Article 48 is a procedural device allowing single prosecution of multiple

felonies falling under either of the two:

(1) When a single constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave felonies

(2) When an offense is a necessary means for committing the other.

There were 2 approaches:

(1) The SC allows the “complexing” of a single quasi-crime by breaking its

resulting acts into separate offenses [Abandoning Article 365]; or

(2) The SC forbids the application of Article 48 in the prosecution and

sentencing of quasi-crimes, require single prosecution of all resulting
acts regardless of their number and severity, and separately penalize
each [Maintaining Article 365].

o The SC chose to maintain Article 365 and held that prosecutions under
Article 365 should proceed from a single charge regardless of the
number or severity of the consequences.

 With this, the SC held that this ruling secures for the accused
facing an Article 365 charge a stronger and simpler protection
of their constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

DISPOSITIVE

IVLER’S PETITION GRANTED.

REVERSE RTC.
DISMISS SECOND CASE IN MeTC.

RMLPablo